713 S.E.2d 809
W. Va.2011Background
- ACT, an unincorporated division of the West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to challenge the DOH’s letting of the Red Jacket contract to Nicewonder for public highway work.
- ACT alleged bid-procurement and prevailing-wage violations under state and federal law, including WV bidding statutes and the Davis-Bacon Act, and sought declarations that bidding and wage provisions were required.
- The circuit court dismissed for lack of standing under Findley v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., holding ACT could not show concrete, particularized injuries redressable by a court.
- The case was removed to federal court, which addressed standing for Davis-Bacon claims and dismissed state-law claims; on remand, the circuit court granted summary judgment against ACT for lack of standing.
- ACT appealed the circuit court’s dismissal, and the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding ACT has representative standing to sue on behalf of its members under UDJA, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The decision resolves the appropriate standard for representational standing and applies it to ACT’s claims regarding competitive bidding and prevailing-wage requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACT has representative standing under UDJA to seek declaratory relief. | ACT members would have standing; ACT represents their interests. | ACT lacked injury-in-fact and standing to sue. | ACT has representative standing; relief remanded for merits. |
| Whether at least one member would have standing to sue in their own right. | Members are injured by bidding and wage violations. | No member has standalone standing. | At least one member would have standing in their own right. |
| Whether the interests ACT seeks to protect are germane to its purpose. | Protecting wages and bidding aligns with ACT’s purpose. | Interests not germane. | Germane to ACT’s purpose. |
| Whether participation of individual members is required in the declaratory action. | No individual member participation needed. | Individual member involvement required. | No individual participation required; representative standing satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Callaghan, 168 W. Va. 265, 284 S.E.2d 241 (1981) (1981) (standing for associations representing members; defined three-part test)
- Chesapeake & Ohio Sys. Fed’n, Bhd. of Maint. of Way Ems. v. Hash, 170 W. Va. 294, 294 S.E.2d 96 (1982) (1982) (unincorporated associations may sue; clarifies standing for declaratory actions)
- Brock (International Union v. Brock), 477 U.S. 274, 290 (1986) (1986) (associational standing benefits from expertise; vindication of shared interests)
- Shobe v. Latimer, 162 W. Va. 779, 253 S.E.2d 54 (1979) (1979) (Declaratory Judgment standing when significant interests are affected)
- Laidley, 164 W. Va. 127, 260 S.E.2d 847 (1979) (1979) (standing for associations where members are precluded from bidding)